I have always admired the current Governor of Kaduna State, Mr.
Nasir Ahmed el-Rufai, mainly for his diligent and intellectual
approach to work, especially when he was the Director-General of
the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and later the Minister of
the Federal Capital Territory during the pendency of the Obasanjo
administration.
I had the opportunity of directly benefiting from his
intellectual sagacity when our company law and practice lecturer in
the Abuja Campus of the Nigerian Law School invited him to be a
guest lecturer in 2002. He spoke on the then ongoing privatization
programme of the Federal Government. I was so intellectually
enriched by his lecture that I had to recount our experience during
the lecture to the whole nation in an article that I titled “When
Mr. Privatization Visited the Law School,” published at page 42 in
The Guardian newspaper of September 22, 2002 and in the
Vanguard newspaper of December 4, 2002. I had the
opportunity of relating more closely with him when he came to speak
during an annual lecture at our branch, the Ikeja Branch of the
Nigerian Bar Association, years after I was called to the bar.
But, unfortunately afterwards, the nation seems to have since
been witnessing some hitherto unknown or unnoticed trait in Mr.
el-Rufai. What appeared to have been the first symptom of
el-Rufai’s disrespect for Nigerians, their representatives or
constituted authority was first noticed in 2004 when the Minister
responded to a Senate inquiry into his handling of the Abuja
master-plan by remarking that “Silence is the best answer to a
fool.” The remark was widely regarded as so rude that President
Olusegun Obasanjo had to write a letter of apology on his behalf to
the Senate. But such a disrespectful and aggressive trait in him
seemed to have distinctly manifested on the Nigerian Television
Authority on February 8, 2018 as the Governor made the following
threatening statement, thereby desecrating his hallowed office and
the image of Nigeria before the international community, while
speaking on foreign election observers in the forthcoming general
elections: “Those that are calling for anyone to come and intervene
in Nigeria, we are waiting for the person that will come and
intervene. They would go back in body bags.” But for his similar
antecedents and the do-or-die approach of many politicians to
elections in Nigeria, one could have downplayed that as a case of a
man merely finding it difficult to distinguish between the
international law concepts of foreign election observation,
intervention and interference. Intervention is the lawful or
unlawful use of force by a foreign country or an international
organization in the internal or external affairs of another
sovereign country. Interference is similar to it but is almost all
the time unlawful. But can an informed person honestly say that an
election observation involves the use of force or that it is
tantamount to interference?
For the avoidance of doubt, the European Union (EU), African
Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS), among others, have always sent election observers to
their development partners or member States, including Nigeria.
Among the 28 foreign observer groups that the Independent National
Electoral Commission (INEC) has accredited for the forthcoming
elections are the EU, AU, ECOWAS, Commonwealth, US Embassy, British
High Commission, Canadian High Commission, African Bar Association,
Nigerians in Diaspora, French Embassy, Japanese Embassy, Korean
Embassy and the Egyptian Embassy. There is nothing aberrant in this
under the international law and the municipal law applicable in
Nigeria. In this regard, section 19 (c) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended provides that Nigeria’s
“foreign policy objectives shall be –promotion of international
cooperation for the consolidation of universal peace and mutual
respect among all nations.” Article 3 of the Constitutive Act of
the AU, of which Nigeria is a key actor, similarly provides that
the objectives of the Union shall be to (g) “promote democratic
principles and institutions, popular participation and good
governance” and to (h) “promote and protect human and peoples’
rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights and other relevant human rights instruments.” It has to be
noted that the Supreme Court of Nigeria has given judicial flavor
to the justiceability of the African Charter in Nigeria in
Fawehinmi v Abacha (2000) NWLR (Pt 660) 228; (2000) 4 SCNJ
400. Thus, Governor el-Rufai’s violence outburst has no legal or
moral basis. If investigation is carried out, you are even likely
to find out that his administration has enjoyed development aid
progrmmes from these foreign countries or organizations since he
became Governor in 2015—a clear case of a person trying to take
advantage of a legal and moral benefit without taking the
corresponding legal and moral burden.
If you do not have any hidden agenda or skeleton in your
cupboard, you have no need of being afraid of local or foreign
election observers, who like the good people of Nigeria, are
yearning for peaceful, free, fair and credible elections in the
country on February 16 and March 2, 2019. May be Mr. el-Rufai needs
to be informed that Nigeria has always done what is even far more
than sending election observes abroad. Nigeria has sent soldiers
and the police to maintain peace or monitor and ensure free and
fair elections in foreign countries in recent years, examples being
Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and the Gambia. Why did not el-Rufai
protest then that the Obasanjo administration, part of which he
was, was intervening or interfering in those foreign countries’
domestic affairs? Why did he not cry against the real case of
foreign interference when a battalion of presidential delegation
from Niger Republic led by two Governors recently came to campaign
for his political party in Kano?
Governor el-Rufai’s outburst was all the more unwarranted
because it came from a Governor leading a State of Northern Nigeria
that is highly diverse and volatile on the grounds of
ethno-religious diversity. It is a notorious fact that thousands of
people have been killed by religious fundamentalists and herdsmen
in Kaduna State since the commencement of this democratic
dispensation in 1999. Therefore, one would have expected an
informed Governor in Mr. el-Rufai’s caliber to have launched a
genuine healing process since coming to office in 2015.
Unfortunately, the man seems to have been compounding matters in
the State. Just recently, he broke off with the political
convention in the State by appointing a fellow Muslim as his
running mate in the forthcoming governorship election. And he has
called the bluff of the concerned media and the people, including a
notable Muslim leader in the State, Sheik Ahmad Gumi, who said what
he has done was not in the interest of peaceful co-existence and
mutual trust in the State. While no letter of the Nigerian law
specifically dictates to a Governor a person of whose race or
religion to appoint as his running mate, it is certain that Mr.
el-Rufai’s choice in the volatile State does not advance the spirit
of section 14 (4) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution which provides
that the “composition of the Government of a State, a local
government council, or any of the agencies of such Government or
council, and the conduct of the affairs of the Government or
council or such agencies shall be carried out in such manner as to
recognise the diversity of the people within its area of authority
and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all
the people of the Federation.” Section 15 (2) and (3) (d) of the
same Constitution similarly lays on our public officers the duty to
promote “national integration” across places “of origin, sex,
religion, status, ethnic or linguistic association or ties” and
“promote or encourage the formation of associations that cut across
ethnic, linguistic, religious or other sectional barriers.”
Mr. el-Rufai’s latest gaffe in the form of the unwarranted
threat against the foreign election observers could in no way
promote national integration; it could only worsen things or even
precipitate political, ethnic and religious violence in his Kaduna
State and Nigeria in general during the elections. There is indeed
a permutation that the man resorted to the threat because he was
jittery over an election defeat, which may be impending or
inevitable as a result of his own choice. But, no matter his
egocentric interest, under no circumstances should a leader be seen
to be purveying hate speech or inciting his supporters into
violence. We should not be quick to forget the cold murder of
innocent Nigerians, including youth corps members, as a fallout of
the 2011 presidential election in Kaduna and some other Northern
States. Those who want to treat the forthcoming elections as a
do-or-die affair should be reminded that not just the Nigerian
criminal law but international criminal law instruments as the 1998
Statute of Rome and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have
established supranational mechanisms for dealing with them. The
world has passed the stage wherein a ruler or his supporters can
perpetrate or incite violence, war crimes, genocide or crimes
against humanity and try to get away with it by turning round to
hide under the plea or excuse of the doctrines of sovereignty and
non-interference. Those who want to treat the forthcoming general
elections in Nigeria as a do-or-die affair should also be reminded
of the former President Charles Taylor of Liberia, a fellow West
African country. Incidentally, he was arrested in Nigeria before
being taken into international prison custody for trial by a United
Nations-backed Special Court that sat at The Hague in the
Netherlands. He was in September 2013 sentenced to 50 years’ jail
term for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The election
trouble-makers and their sponsors should also remember the former
President Laurent Gbagbo of Cote d’Ivoire, another fellow West
African country. He was arrested after refusing to relinquish power
despite losing a presidential election. He only recently got off
the hook after his trial by the ICC. Even the junta of General Sani
Abacha of Nigeria had to pay dearly for the atrocities it
perpetrated under the excuse of ‘no foreigner can query me.’
The whole world has become a global village, especially in this
era of globalization. If the international community keeps aloof on
the Nigerian elections, thereby giving room for riggers to have
their way, and violence follows, would not the international
community be effected in one way or the other afterwards? Even
without any conventional war in Nigeria now, the US and the UK,
among others, have been overwhelmed by the influx of legal and
illegal Nigerian immigrants into their counties. Instead of
learning to do things right so as to stop such embarrassing
emigrations, we are always quick to blame or overreact to the
current American President who says that we need to get our act
(including our elections) together, failing which issuance of visas
to our nationals would no longer be business as usual. And now that
they want to assist us, will it be wise to selfishly threaten them?
The foreign observers should not kowtow to any threat or blackmail.
No political office holder is greater than all Nigerians, let alone
the international community. Demographically and politically,
Nigeria is so important in Africa that the world cannot pretend
that events as general elections are not happening here at this
time. It is shocking that erstwhile beneficiaries of the rule of
law or due process, especially in the 2015 general elections, are
now fiercely opposed to it. But, whether they like it or not, the
aspirations of the people—whether the ruling party or the
opposition–must be allowed to prevail in the elections. Democracy
must be allowed to thrive here. Neither the ruling party nor the
opposition must be allowed to win by hook or crook. The officers of
INEC, the police and other concerned law enforcement agencies
should realize that their loyalty in the elections must be towards
the Federal Republic of Nigeria, rather than any political office
holder, politician, political party or candidate. I also appeal to
our judiciary to diligently, justly and fairly handle the election
petitions that will certainly follow the announcement of the
results. Justice has no political, tribal or religious
affiliation.
God bless Nigeria!
Anthony S. Aladekomo is a law lecturer in the Ekiti State
University, Ado Ekiti.